Kotaku reader Robert wrote to South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson earlier this year on the topic of video game classification in Australia. Robert has just received a reply. Would you like to read it?
Below are several key excerpts from the letter Robert received from the minister. You can also download a scan of the entire letter via this link.
You may be aware that there was talk of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General releasing a discussion paper on [the introduction of an R18+ classification for games] . I have been awaiting the release of this paper… Alas, the paper has not yet been released and, despite my inquiring, I do not know when it will be available. I want the discussion paper released as soon as possible and have done nothing to impede its release.
Although some members are advocates of this classification, I believe other Attorneys-General, like me, reject it. Other Attorneys-General who are opposed to introducing an R18+ classification for computer games are content to let me be the lightening (sic) rod for the gamers.
I am well aware that many game players are adults… However, it is important you do not confuse the classification rating of a game with the game’s sophistication, or the challenge or interest to the player… It does not follow that a game is more interesting to an adult simply because it contains extreme violence, explicit sexual material or highly offensive language. Indeed, with all the effort and money that goes into game development, coupled with the effects and graphics now available, there is no need to introduce these extreme elements. I am bafffled and worried about why proponents of R18+ games are putting up their hands and saying ‘Give us more cruel sex and extreme violence!’
‘Interactive Australia 2007′, a report prepared by Bond University for the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia, surveyed 1,606 Australian households randomly. The report found “79% of Australian households have a device for computer and video games”. Further, 62% of Australians in these gaming households “say the classification of a game has no influence on their buying decision”.
Given this data, I cannot fathom what State-enforced safeguards could exist to prevent R18+ games being bought by households with children and how children can be stopped from using these games once the games are in the home. If adult gamers are so keen to have R18+ games, I expect children would be just as keen.
Classification of electronic games is very different from the classification of film. In cinemas, the age of movie-goers can be regulated… Rising game and console sales make it clear that this is a growing area that needs careful regulation, even more so than cinemas and private D.V.D. hire and purchase. Access to electronic games, once in the home, cannot be policed and therefore the games are easily accesible to children.
What the present law does is keep the most extreme material off the shelves. It is true that this restricts adult liberty to a small degree, however, I am prepared to accept this infringement in the circumstances.
I am concerned about the level of violence in society and the widespread acceptance of simulated violence as a form of entertainment. I am particularly concerned about the impact of this extreme content on children and vulnerable adults.
I believe the repeated act of killing a computer-generated person or creature desensitises them to violence. To my mind, a child being able to watch depraved sex and extreme violence in a movie is damaging to the child, but the child’s participating (sic) in depraved sex and extreme violence in a computer game is worse.
Game-houses are always free to adapt games that would otherwise be R.C. [Refused Classification]and modify the game content to be in line with the M.A.15+ classification… I do not accept that this destroys the artistic integrity of the game – excusing gore and depraved sex as art is an immature argument.
Contrarily, it has been suggested that games that would otherwise be classified R18+ are instead slipping through as M.A.15+ and becoming accessible to children. This argument does not support an R18+ classification for games. There may be games that some people consider too violent for the M.A.15+ classification but the solution is not to create a classification that would permit even more violent games in Australia. M.A.15+ games are restricted to children over 15 and if younger children access these games it further justifies complete protection from R18+ games. It is up to parents and responsible adults to ensure a game is appropriate for a minor whatever age he or she is. It is up to members of the Classification Board to apply the Guidelines correctly and not to try to defeat the Guidelines because they disagree with the outcome of the actions of elected officials in a democratic rule-of-law society.
Please read the full letter now. I’d like to hear how you would respond to Mr Atkinson. Where are the weaknesses in his reply? Has he contradicted himself? What is the best way for the pro-R18+ movement to counter Mr Atkinson’s argument? Or perhaps you feel he actually makes some very valid points and, if so, which ones?
Sensible comments only, please.
DavidR
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 2:48 PM“I am bafffled and worried about why proponents of R18+ games are putting up their hands and saying ‘Give us more cruel sex and extreme violence!’”.
He know for a fact nobody has ever said anything like this when speaking about the reasons for this classification.
BIGGEST CONTRADICTION RIGHT HERE:
“Access to electronic games, once in the home, cannot be policed and therefore the games are easily accesible to children.”
“It is up to members of the Classification Board to apply the Guidelines correctly and not to try to defeat the Guidelines because they disagree with the outcome of the actions of elected officials in a democratic rule-of-law society.”
On one hand, he states that games cannot be policed in the home. Instead of allowing parents to police their children and what their children should see, hear and play, he decides for all parents. He directly takes the decision out of the parents’ hands and makes the decision for them. AND THEN, IN THE SAME LETTER, mentions the concept of democracy. Is he being deliberately obtuse?
“explicit sexual material”
“cruel sex”
“depraved sex”
“depraved sex”
“depraved sex”
Every time. Every single time Atkinson makes his point about why he is opposed to an R rating, he mentions sex as one of the reason. One thing he never, ever, not once, does however is name the games he is referring to. It is tiring to read his statements time and time again with no titles of games he is talking about. Is he referring to Rapelay? If so, then say so. Clearly mention a Japanese game that wouldn’t enter this country anyway because IT IS RATED X. NOT R, BUT X. Does he really expect anyone to believe that we will see games like Rapelay on the shelves of Big W? If not, then say so.
Make clear, distinct, specific points about particular games, Michael. As opposed to just nonsensical scaremongering about THESE GAMERS WANT GORE SEX SWEAR WORDS IN THEIR GAMES DEPRAVED VUNERABLE ADULTS CHILDREN CAN’T BE PROTECTED!!! with absolutely no mention whatsoever of what you’re referring to.
Seriously, I’m really, really exhausted from reading the same old thing from him. Exhausted because every single argument he presents is factually incorrect or unclear and he never, ever, ever seems to even begin to understand this. Surely, someone on his staff AT SOME POINT has maybe mentioned this at least once? Is he still going to be making these outlandish claims in ten years time?
Ayrton Coll
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:48 PMHe also sent an almost identical letter to me in which he DID mention rape play amongts a list of japanese rape-games, as I said before the current classification guidelines even in regards to R 18 content do not allow sexual violence, and we should be pointing out in the media that Atkinson is either unaware of this or blatantly misrepresenting the guidelines.
DavidR
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:55 PMWow, really? He actually named something? That’s a first.
Ayrton Coll
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 6:08 PMActually he has been naming games for ages, “Blitz: the league” and “Narc” seem to be his favorites. In fact most of his letter to me was naming games and all the horrible stuff they had in them, it was actually a little scary.
Cat Tactics
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 2:49 PMPS3 & Xbox360 (what 99.9% of young gamers will be playing on) both have parental controls. These can NOT be bypassed without the parent’s action.
NOW WHAT THE HELL IS THE PROBLEM.
Rappo
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 2:49 PMDid we notice he distorted the facts here:
“‘Interactive Australia 2007′, a report prepared by Bond University for the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia, surveyed 1,606 Australian households randomly. The report found “79% of Australian households have a device for computer and video games”. Further, 62% of Australians in these gaming households “say the classification of a game has no influence on their buying decision”.”
The trick is that it was a RANDOM sample, and paid no attention to whether the household even contained children. If we think about it a little more, homes with children over the age of 15 aren’t going to care about ratings as the child can just buy it themselves anyhow. Homes where the children are to young aren’t going to care about ratings (the game is for the adults anyhow). Homes without children aren’t going to care about ratings either. That leaves homes with children old enough to play games (and how are interested in games), but younger than 15 as the homes that need to worry about what a game is rated (and only then if the particular game is for a child/accessible by a child). Now it seems to me that 48% of gaming households paying attention to ratings actually seems higher than I would have expected.
Nworb
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 2:49 PM“79% of Australian households have a device for computer and video games”. Further, 62% of Australians in these gaming households “say the classification of a game has no influence on their buying decision”.
This statement is indicative that Australian households are not being served by the current rating system for games, and are instead opting to ignore the rating advice on offer, pointing to the need to educate the public and revise the system in such a way that it is clearer, more consistent and trustworthy.
If I were a parent of a 15 year old, knowing already the content of games such as GTAIV and LFD1, was being given a rating of MA15+, then I would ignore the rating system as well.
Currently we’re in the situation where some parents are ignoring the rating system because they are not well informed as to the kinds of games that are being passed through as MA15+ – consequently buying inappropriate games for their children.
While other parents are ignoring the rating system because they are very well informed and realize what is and isn’t appropriate for their kids, and make the decision themselves to not purchase violent games for 15 years olds, regardless of an MA15+ rating.
formulated
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 2:51 PMHe has made a valid point that the artistic integrity of a game is not hindered by the removal of gore or sex. I’m actually glad he can considers “artistic” relevant vocabulary when talking about games. To the same extent though, if Wolf Creek (rated R+18) were edited a bit to remove some of the blood and gore, it’s artistic integrity would still be intact, yet that doesn’t mean it’s appropriate viewing for 15 year olds.
on a quick note (I’m meant to be working)..
He seems to think that bringing in R+18 will open the flood gates for extreme content in our country. In reality less than 10 games per year are refused classification, meanwhile hundreds of games already flood the market which are given MA+15 could be given R+18 instead. So to protect Australia from 10 games (which by all means could still actually be banned, R+18 isn’t just the new RC) per year, we are shoe-horning games into R+18. If someone were to look at all the MA+15 games we have that are R18 in the UK you’d come out with a figure to rebut his point that we’re not actually protecting anyone, if anything we’re (read: he’s) doing more harm than good.
I also question if Atkinson has actually seen some of the content he’s discussing. He seems quite hooked on the idea of depraved sex and violence. Perhaps he should be reminded of the content we’re already getting. I wish I could make a short trailer with examples of UK R18 games.. the bathroom sex scene in GTAIV: TBoGT, Airport in COD:MW2, sex scenes in God Of War, chain sawing grunts in Gears Of War, Bioshock 2, exploding heads in Fallout 3, stylised violence in Madworld, realistic violence in Killzone 2. If this were in a trailer (which didn’t attempt to celebrate such things) and at the end posed the question, “shouldn’t these games be rated R?”
Ben
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 2:55 PMEr, what?
In one part of his letter, he claims that it is impossible to regulate the use of video games (i.e. prevent children playing MA15+ and above games) once a video game enters the home. In another part, he claims that it is the responsibility of parents to ensure that they know what their children are playing and to take necessary actions.
Which is it?
If it’s the classification board, etc, job to regulate it, an extra classification rating makes sense, as it can explicitly prevent the sales of certain games to minors.
If it’s the parents responsibility, then an extra classification rating makes sense, as it provides better information to parents.
Ross Edwards
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 2:55 PMI should also point out here that these are the same arguments put to cinema and TV from long ago. The “desensitised children” arguement for example has been proven to be wrong.
The main crux difference between TV/Cinema and games is the interactivity. This is where the debate should be housed. If games were not interactive, R18 is on the same playing field. The interactivity is argued to have a greater impact. Our arguement back should be the studies that have shown this is not the case, and that in fact kids that play violent games are actually more calm then those that done.
Michael Atkinson also contradicted himself saying that parents monitor what movies come into a house, but does apply this arguement to games (which he said if its in the house, kids will play it). He also made out the desirability of R18 for kids is an issue. What teenagers are after porno and violent movies any less?
Aron
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 2:57 PMHis argument about movies being more easily regulated etc is inaccurate…every one of these movies is released on DVD and any child could easily access an R18+ DVD in a house hold once purchased by an adult.
This guy is crumbling under pressure and i love it…politicians grasping for manipulated data, ignoring research that opposes their opinions, making up entirely false information, disrespecting others and other politicians etc. We will receive an R rating eventually…it’s just a matter of time. Is the purpose of the government not to serve the public and respect public decision? It is not to overthrow them with a personal minority opinion.
Finlay Downes
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:00 PM“I do not accept that this destroys the artistic integrity of the game – excusing gore and depraved sex as art is an immature argument.”
What he’s doing here is using the straw-man argument: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I do not know what others have argued, but this is what I stated in my letter:
I am writing in response to your stance on video-game classification. I believe your view of the ‘gamer’ community is misguided, and that the restriction of game classifications is inhibiting the development of a potential new medium.
I am an eighteen year old male, who is currently studying design in visual communication at university. I am an advocate of the arts, of literature, of music, of film and, indeed, video games. While I would not deny that literature and film are capable of producing works of the most tasteless appeal, it would be a fallacy to ignore the great emotional and intellectual impact of others. It is true that there is yet no such thing as a video-game that could rival the likes of novels such Lolita, but I believe this is because video-games are a medium still in their infancy. Censorship by the government will do nothing to help the development of this industry through a violent, angst-ridden adolescence to a medium which will one day be capable of deeply affecting one of the largest-growing demographics in the world.
The statement that video games are nothing but “virtual suffering that R18+ nerds seek to inflict for their gratification on the computer screen” is blatantly prejudiced. I may not speak for the entire ‘gamer’ community but I myself am a pacifist and would like to think that I am a well-adjusted individual who both has a social life and a range of interests beyond a screen.
I can think of none of my friends – also involved in video games – who would seek out a game which promoted the ability to ‘rape a mother and her two daughters’; most ‘gamers’ are not entirely morally depraved. However, rape is indeed a terrible and deeply emotional subject, and its denial within media has been a significant issue before. No doubt treatments such as these by the medium have contributed to the severe emotional distress of rape victims, and the difficulty that has often been encountered by victims in admitting and seeking counselling. This is, however, only one instance. I mention this not to advocate permitting a player to commit such a horrible deed within a video-game context, but how that presentation – and furthermore the denial – of adult subjects within the media is a significant issue. Allowing adult subjects to be presented within a new medium does not necessarily mean that the viewers will advocate these things. I would support this statement with references to games such as the upcoming ‘Heavy Rain’; a game about the emotional and moral impacts upon a group of characters affected by a child abductor.
I am personally more concerned with the issue of addressing rape within real Australian cities than is presentation in a fictional context. I would urge you to reconsider your stance and its implications.”
Ryno
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:03 PMMichael argues we should not confuse high levels of violence and sexuality with increased entertainment. however HE should not confuse increased levels of violence and sexuality as being without entertainment value, context is always the deciding factor.
the reason we have an 18+ catagory of film is to accomidate movies like Saving Private Ryan or Wolf Creek, where the context of realisitic or intense violence is appropriate for drama and horror respectively.
he also states that in the implimentaton of a 18+ catagory of games he cannot see a way to prevent households from purchaing these items and them getting into the hands of children and implies this is justification to continue without a rating.
frankly by that argument he should be pushing for a banning of alcohol and cigarettes from australia, both are intended for adults only and do actual physical and mental(rather than supposed mental) harm. and both have poor track records of being kept from underage persons after sale using the same standard every other country uses for their 18+ catagory games, ID only sales and fines for sellers who do not comply.
James
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:04 PMThis is what disheartens me most about this situation.
Michael Atkinson is no idiot, and he believes he is doing the right thing, and in a way, he is. But censorship and the outright banning of material is not the right way for him to go about it.
There are other ways to prevent these games from getting into the hands of kids, either through education about games ratings, or holding sellers and parents responsible for letting children get hold of this material.
Restricting the content itself is admittedly the easiest method, but that ease adds an an ethical cost.
Imagine if every product that was unsuitable for children was removed from Australia. Imagine living in a country where everything we read and saw and experienced was toned down so that a child can happily view it.
Imagine if Oscar winning films such as Silence of the Lambs and The Departed were made suitable for children of all ages. They are violent films, yet the violence is there to serve a purpose, and without that violence the films would have less of an impact and may not have earned the accolades that they have today.
What I am trying to say is that I agree that R18 games should not get into the hands of children, but stopping them at the border and censoring them deprives us of the impact and emotion that games targeted to adults can deliver, and it is hindering the entire medium of Videogames from becoming a widely respected art-form.
Mr Atkinson, your goals seem noble and just, but there must be a better way to achieve them.
Jeremy Teong
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:07 PM“I am bafffled and worried about why proponents of R18+ games are putting up their hands and saying – Give us more cruel sex and extreme violence!”
I would put my hand up against putting a Maple Leaf in front of the statue of David. It doesn’t mean I want to see penis all day long!
Like it or not, the video game industry is fast becoming our new form of cultural and artistic expression, one day it could even be the main form (just look at MW2 sales compared to Transformers movie weekend sales)… They’re artists, not toy makers. So start treating them as such.
It’s a very exciting time for the games industry. You’re trying your best to hold it back but eventually you’re going to have to give in.
Michael Grouse
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:07 PMIf anyone’s interested, I found the original copy of Anderson’s ‘comfortabley numb’ paper here –
http://www.sitemaker.umich.edu/brad.bushman/files/ba09.pdf
Atkinson refers to it towards the end of the letter.
I also found this by Andersons co-author on the same page – ‘When God Sanctions Killing – effect of scriptural violence on aggression’.
http://www.sitemaker.umich.edu/brad.bushman/files/BRDKB07.pdf
Where, a quick scan suggests the same co-author suggests that ‘People who believe that God sanctions violence are more likely to behave aggressively themselves…’
It would be interesting to see if Mr. Atkinson supports those findings too.
Greg Tannahill
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:09 PMIn much the same way as the Modern Warfare 2 boycott helped Activision to record sales, focusing the classification debate on Michael Atkinson does nothing more than bring attention to an otherwise unremarkable (if depressingly uninformed) politician. There is no such thing as bad publicity.
Productive and useful political action on games classification should not be attempting to convince Michael Atkinson; it should be attempting to convince his audience. This needs to be about helping Australians understand the massive penetration of an increasingly mainstream passtime and the problems it raises for artistic development and free speech across all media.
Every time Atkinson’s face pops up it makes the whole debate nothing more than a mudslinging match between marginalised radical fringes. Sensible politics doesn’t engage the crazies.
Ad
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:10 PMThe man backs himself up solely with strawman arguments. Rather than addressing the questions people has, he poses himself questions he wants to answer. The sooner he loses his seat the better.
None
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:15 PM“are content to let me be the lightening (sic) rod for the gamers.”
He speaks of gamers as if they were some uncontrollable force or feral population, awesome way to appear arrogant to your recipient.
He also likes to repeat the phrase “depraved sex” and “violence”, so basically he’s accusing you of being a feral sex fiend:P (Not that sex is bad, did you know that’s how the human race has survived for so long? However, that’s a different issue altogether.)
It can be hard to back up the gamer point of view as he probably sees us as just a bunch of nerds who want to see more blood and squishy bits, but the real issue here is that the government advocating censorship and denying freedoms to Australians.
I believe that preventing kids from getting their hands on mature games should be the responsibility of the individual parent. Those who don’t want their kids playing violent games should take matters into their own hands rather than place the blame on others, surely there are more important things for the government to do than force their ideals of how society should be entertained or children should be raised. (Right? Please tell me I’m right…)
Surely a more beneficial solution would be to approve the R18+ rating, get clerks to ask for ID and educate concerned parents on how to solve their problems.
Nathan
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:15 PMThese sorts of issues are a great argument for the abolishment of state governments, and handing things over to the federales. How can a fedral government body (oflc) be dictated to by a state minister (and someone who to me appears to be the result of inter sibling…. well you know the rest!)
Crono
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:16 PMHis arguments are still full of holes and bizarre misconception of the content gamers in Australia want unedited. I can understand why he has latched on to Rapeplay and other Japanese adult games but these games aren’t released in the US or Europe where they do have 18+ ratings nor released on home consoles (at least, in their adult form) on home consoles in Japan.
I do know what he means about the lack of awareness of classifications on games (and movie to an equal degree) and I’m sure a lot of parents will buy little Jimmy’s game for him without thinking twice about the MA rating (I DO think the big black R18 – Adults Only rating might catch her eye though) but that’s not a fault of the game industry nor the Board of Classification. It’s the parent’s problem. If a clerk sells House of the Dead: Overkill to a 10 year old, that’s the clerk’s fault not the game. Aside from Alcohol, I’ve been IDed ONCE in my life. When I was 12, I wanted to buy Ghost in the Shell (BBFC rating – 15) on VHS. When I got to the counter the youth serving at the desk looked at me. “Are you fifteen?” he inquired. “Yes.” I responded, my face flushed and my terror obvious to all. “Hmmm…” He rubbed his chin. “okay.” What was he going to do? Ask to see my driver’s license? It’s a tough rule to enforce but the enforcing of the rule is not the job of the makers of the product.
Refusing to classify content for one medium (games) that is fine in another (movies), again, doesn’t solve any problems. Infact, it creates new ones when games that can’t get an R18 rating are squeezed through with an MA15 one.
Sure, this ploy might make big developers look more closely at their games and expunge that nasty violence or sexual content and make it all lovely and nice… except… Australia is a Minor Territory. That means, in terms of video games/movies/music sales, it’s not a big deal. While some might edit the content, others might feel that the cost outweighs the potential profit. What it does mean is that more people are importing games from other Territories which lower profit in Australia and in turn harm Australian distributors.
Should there be an R18 rating for games? Of course there should be. Any rational human being would realize that. Should the R18 rating be enforced? I’d have to say yes, and more so than MA15 is currently. The person selling the game should make clear to the customer that the game in question contains material not suitable for children and if they still wish to buy the game.
What is to stop a child watching a pornographic DVD purchased by a parent? Nothing. Consoles however, can be locked by parents so even if the child did get the game, assuming they aren’t using the adult’s account, they couldn’t play it.
I understand that Mr Atkinson believes that “the repeated act of killing a computer-generated person or creature desensitises (children) to violence” Which is fine. But just because he believes it doesn’t make it true and extensive studies tend to show this not to be the case. It also brings us back to the point of all this. An R18 rating. The child shouldn’t be playing the game in the first place.
Can we convince Mr Atkinson that this is the case? Of course not. After reading his unaccurate, contradicting diatribe, I realize that nothing we cay would change his opinion. He continually spouts nonsense based on his own uneducated conjecture. He says that “It is up to parents and responsible adults to ensure a game is appropriate for a minor whatever age he or she is.” which is the most sensical thing he has said, yet he preceded it with “62% of Australians in these gaming households “say the classification of a game has no influence on their buying decision” and “I cannot fathom what State-enforced safeguards could exist to prevent R18+ games being bought by households with children and how children can be stopped from using these games once the games are in the home”.
He also says “It is true that this restricts adult liberty to a small degree, however, I am prepared to accept this infringement in the circumstances”. Admirable sentiments but it leaves me with a question. Mr Atkinson is prepared to accept this infringement of liberty. Since when does Mr Atkinson speak for all in Australia? Because he has seen fit to shoulder the burden of denying us our freedoms. Are we prepared to let him? Do WE “accept” it?
Jeremy Teong
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:26 PMVery well said.
The only way I’ve been successful in convincing people like that is by putting things in metaphorical terms they might understand.
Kaeckerut
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:17 PMMichael Atkinson seems to believe having an R18+ rating means anything not MA (restricted to 15+) will fall into this R18+ category. It appears that he doesn’t yet undertand that games can still be given a RC (Refused Classification) while an R18+ rating exists, therefore banning the game still.
I think if he can understand this, it might be a win-win for all of us.
Alex Cullinan
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:18 PM“I believe the repeated act of killing a computer-generated person or creature desensitises them to violence. To my mind, a child being able to watch depraved sex and extreme violence in a movie is damaging to the child, but the child’s participating (sic) in depraved sex and extreme violence in a computer game is worse.”
Man, isn’t that what an R18+ rating would prevent? Man. MAN.
I agree with what Dan Houser, I think it was, said the other day, about it being so frustrating and hypocritical that the movie industry is pretty much exempt from the same criticism that the game industry is now under.
Kav
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:19 PMI am going to import every single game that is refused classification in Australia. This will take revenue out of the country and into the hands of foreign businesses.
Congratulations Mr Atkinson, you’re a real ambassador of our economy.
Cerzel
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:23 PM“There may be games that some people consider too violent for the M.A.15+ classification but the solution is not to create a classification that would permit even more violent games in Australia. M.A.15+ games are restricted to children over 15 and if younger children access these games it further justifies complete protection from R18+ games.”
So… He’s saying that young children playing MA15+ games that should have been rated R18+ is better than them playing the same game with an R18+ rating, when that would cause it to be less available to young children?
Chris McAlister
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:25 PMFirstly, I am very pro R18+, but I think before you attack Atkinson you need to take his points on board. I can understand why he doesn’t want R18+ material getting into the hands of children although I don’t belive that taking away basic freedoms of adults is the solution.
In a perfect world, we could meet Atkinson in the middle. We could get our R18+ content, but parents who purchase R18+ games for children should face fines similar to if they brought the kids cigarettes or alcohol, not just the retailers. I really think that this should apply to MA15+ games as well, the ratings are there for a reason and I would love to be able to play my violent online shooters without some 8 year old kid singing the theme song to “Postman Pat” over his headset.
Which brings me to another major issue: make all headsets for online gaming R18+.
Jeremy Teong
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:37 PMThat’s an interesting point about the headset.
Firstly I agree, they should be working on fixing the problem of the material getting into the hands of children and not the material itself. The focus is in the wrong direction.
As for the headset, it would probably better if the console parental controls could work for online chat too. Does it already? I don’t know.
David Wildgoose
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:43 PMConsole parental controls can restrict online access as well.
Chris McAlister
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:30 PMOh, another issue. When are we going to start censoring books? I don’t understand why books are exempt from any sort of censorship.
There’s a bit of a ruckus at our local high school because one of the new vampire books is full of vampiric fellacio (?!), and I remember that some of the girls found a library book when I was in high school that featured a teenage girl getting a dog to perform cunnilingus on her.
Sounds a lot worse than shooting Zombies in my humble opinion…
DavidR
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:32 PMHmm, sorry David. I made the second post because I believed the first one was lost.
David Wildgoose
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:45 PMIt was caught in our spam filter, most likely for the repetition of “depraved sex”. It can be terribly efficient at times.
DavidR
Monday, November 16, 2009 at 3:51 PMAh, I see. Yes, very efficient. Lucky I didn’t put the words ‘viagra’ and ‘rolex’ in there as well:)